User talk:Scjessey

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A descriptive header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions. Please note this is not a forum for discussing the topic generally.

Talk page guidelines Please respect etiquette and assume good faith. Also be nice and remain civil.

Fine page!

That's a very attractive talkpage you've got here. Minimalist yet striking. darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 23:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC).

December 2016

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Barack Obama, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. William Avery (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

This was not me. I think my account was compromised. I have changed my password. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell I see you have blocked me because of a compromised account. I have changed my password. Do I need to do anything else to get my editing privileges back? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Change your email. Marvellous Spider-Man 13:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Since we don't know whether the account is still compromised, and must assume it is at this time, some convincing off-site verification will be necessary, preferably using a pre-established non-compromised identity. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Marvellous Spider-Man: The email account associated with my Wikipedia account? I'm not sure what purpose that would serve. My original Wikipedia password (now changed) was not used for anything else. It would be awesome if two-factor authentication was a fully rolled out feature on Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Erm... okay. Any suggestions? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Note - I have a meeting I need to go to for about four hours, so I will be away from Wikipedia. If anyone has any good ideas about how I can get unblocked in the meantime, I would greatly appreciate it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about this, Simon, but you'll need to find some way of proving that you're the real Scjessey. Are there admins or well-known editors you know in real life or you've contacted off-wiki that you can contact to verify who you are? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I suggest a selfie photo taken holding today's newspaper. That could be compared to the photo on his user page.- MrX 14:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd be satisfied with that. Thanks, MrX. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: I don't get a newspaper, but I can take a selfie with this talk page in the picture (functionally equivalent) and then upload it to my personal website. If that doesn't prove I'm me, I don't know what does. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Okay, I've done it. Please don't laugh when you click on this proof it is me. You may need to copy/paste the URL directly into your browser because of the way my server is setup. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: I've had to do a modified version of your idea. Not getting any responses though. Any chance you could mention my plight to a passing admin for me? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I get a "forbidden" error there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

You should be able to just go to the link directly in your browser. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Works with a copy/paste. It's him (with a sad look)  :)) --TMCk (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

That's a relief. I was going to do a Google Photos link, but Google uses a URL shortener that Wikipedia apparently blocks. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@TracyMcClark: Well... I'm bummed about being blocked. With that said, I can appreciate the humor of the situation as well as the inconvenience of it. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I definitely can see your frustration in the pic. The little ordeal should be over shortly, tho. Cheers, --TMCk (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Seriously though. Wikipedia needs 2FA more than ever. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Unblocked. Hello there, Scjessey, welcome back. Me, I don't use 2FA (too inconvenient with all my socks, cough), but I have a strong-ass password. Bishonen | talk 18:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC).

• Bless you, Bishonen. Sorry for all the trouble everyone. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• I can see it now. Was unblocking but Bish beat me to the button (she moves fast for a dinosaur!). I trust you have a strong password now? One that you don't use anywhere else (and FYI, MediaWiki supports absurdly long passwords)? Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you, User:HJ Mitchell. My password is much stronger now. Fortunately, I never use the same password on different accounts. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Any idea how his happened then? Reuse of passwords between websites was thought to be the cause of the last incident like this. Might be worth an email to the WMF. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• I have absolutely no idea. The only thing I can think of is that I've had the same password for years and never really given it much thought. I will change it on a regular basis from now on. And now I think of it, I have a global Wikimedia login setup. I'd better check to see if anything else has been messed with. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI: A password manager like Lastpass can come in very handy to prevent password reuse. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

As I indicated earlier, password reuse wasn't the issue because I don't reuse passwords. The problem is more likely related to the fact I've not changed the password for many years and it wasn't nearly strong enough. I was just lazy about it. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC Notice

There is a Request for Comment posted at Talk:New York Daily News#Request for Comment. You are being notified as one of every registered editor who has edited that article in that past year. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating the sanctions already in place, specifically you did not get the required consensus before restoring challenged material (with this edit) on the page Presidency of Donald Trump, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

@Coffee: Thank you for the absurdly aggressive enforcement detailed above, which was enacted more than 24 hours after the original edit took place, and which I did not interpret as a sanction violation anyway. I recognize that Arbitration Enforcement is a thankless job that few editors want to perform, and I thank you for stepping up to the plate and doing this important task, but I think even a cursory glance at my editing record would lead most people to think a knee-jerk block for a single edit I had made with a satisfactory explanatory edit summary was just a bit harsh. Anyway, I respect your authority and this will be my only complaint about the matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't request anyone respect authority, just the process; your cordiality and understanding, however, are noted and appreciated (not seen often while doing this). I prefer that blocks not be punitive, only preventative. If you can give me your word that you will not repeat such behavior, I will gladly lift the sanction. As is always my standard policy with first time offenses. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Coffee: In all honesty, I did not believe I had violated discretionary sanctions (I would never knowingly do so), but I concede that my interpretation may have been in error. I think the block has expired now anyway, but I thank you for the offer. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thanks for your contributions to WP! Sorry for the whole Trump thing. Hopefully I did not come off in a bad light. I was not trying to be an ass or anything. As I said I don't think either of us did anything particularly reprehensible, but I still feel responsible for getting us both sacked. Hope this pie makes up for anything I did or failed to do. Cheers (and for the record I'm not a MAGA person, not that I would let it get in the way of NPOV if I was) ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Civility Barnstar
		For being unbelievably civil in your response to a frustrating situation here in our community of volunteers (the irony of the beverage in this barnstar is not lost on me). 172.56.21.117 (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

BLP Violation Notice

Hi Scjessey, I'm Mr. Daniel Plainview. It appears you have violated our BLP policies with this edit here: [1]. Please either remove or strike the comment, as BLP policies apply even on talk pages. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Scjessey I don't care what you say about Mike Pompeo, but you can't use article talk pages as a platform for smearing editors just because you disagree with them. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Both actions are unacceptable and need to be taken care of by Scjessey pronto. Too many editors are playing fast and loose with Wikipedia guidelines, and that's why we have the chaos and "free-for-all" atmosphere in these discussions. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The relevant policy appears to be WP:BLPTALK, which begins with (emphasis added): "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." The comment is related to making a content choice. You'll also find numerous occurrences of editors calling Trump a liar on that page, without a BLP objection, and for the same reason. I submit that liar is worse than lackey. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I am aware of that policy, as I have been accused of violating BLP a few times and had to refer the accusing editor to that precise link. The source in reference was NBC, not Pompeo. If Scjessey had said that NBC News was not a reliable source, that would be one thing. In reality, it appears Scjessey saw an opportunity to smear someone associated with Donald Trump, and took advantage of it at the expense of Wikipedia policy and active arbitration remedies. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

As written, the policy clearly gives wide latitude if the comment is related to making a content choice. It says nothing supporting your reasoning above, and you appear to be applying the policy as you think it should be rather than as it is. If you want to propose a modification to the policy, do so at WP:VPP. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

No need for any proposal. You've got this one wrong, although I appreciate your good-faithed disagreement. FCAYS is also correct that Scjessey needs to strike any attacks he made against other editors, especially on a page under discretionary sanctions. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

You've got this one wrong I'm always open to new learning, but sorry if I don't just take your word for it. If you care to take it to a higher court, I will read with interest. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

LOL nothing wrong with healthy disagreement. That's what this whole thing is about. I'd like to give Scjessey a chance to make things right before requesting intervention. We need to give these talk pages some order and these endless unchecked attacks on politicians people dislike is not helping. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

By "take it to a higher court", I was referring to a request for community opinions as to that policy, not intervention. I trust that Scjessey would gladly strike if the community agreed with you. And no editor should suffer at the community's failure to produce clear policies. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Mandruss the policy states "unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to content choices." The accusation of "lackey" is unsourced and therefore a violation of the policy. I don't want to bring someone to AE over these 2 violations, so please User:Scjessey strike them. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: That's "and not related to making content choices", not or. It was related to a content choice, so the second condition is not met. As I said. Scjessey is free to strike anyway, and I've seen him submit even when he was in the right, but I wouldn't in his place. Misapplication of policy, especially NPOV and BLP, is widespread and needs resistance in my view, not submission. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mr. Daniel Plainview: Just so you know, I'm completely ignoring this ridiculous thread and your insistence I edit my comments. Have a nice day! -- Scjessey (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Daniel Plainview wasn't the only person who commented. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Factchecker atyourservice: You are correct. But with the exception of sensible words from Mandruss (talk · contribs), none of the comments were worth my attention. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: pointless personal attacks against other editors are contrary to various policies even when your attacks are not ignorant and wrong in their own right. So, these are some sensible words that are worth your attention. Again, if you have trouble behaving rationally and civilly, perhaps it is time for a break. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Factchecker atyourservice: I spend a ton of my time on that page, and I can honestly say that your comments today have been the most verbally abusive we've seen there in recent memory. Pot meet kettle, and I suggest you improve your act considerably before criticizing others for incivility. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

An absurd attempt at equivalency. Pre-emptively spouting ignorant insults in an attempt to silence editors talking about a POV you don't like is not remotely in the same category as criticizing an editor for persistently and obviously misreading your talk page comments. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, the Righteous Abuse argument. That's what is absurd, and, while you are not alone in believing in it, the project is evolving and it's thankfully on the way out. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say that, and the apparent sincerity of your concern for civility is undermined by the appearance that you didn't seem to care about it until I called Scjessey out. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I am concerned about civility, but incivility is rampant due to almost complete absence of enforcement, and I would be rightly criticized for crusading and blocked for disruption if I called out every occurrence of it that I encountered. That's why I haven't said anything at the Trump talk page. However, I find it harder to remain silent in the face of blatant hypocrisy as to incivility, and that's what I saw here. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

FTR, Mr Ernie "thanked" me for my previous comment, so I'm assuming he accepted it. If not, I'm pinging him so he can correct me. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Mandress Yes - the thanks was my acceptance of your explanation. I appreciate the time taken to explain it to me. I still view the "revisionist nonsense" comment to not be in accordance with the civility restriction, but I don't plan to take it any further. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss correcting ping. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, if WP:CIVIL were enforced, half of that page would be gutted. That horse has long left the barn. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It is a shame that so many editors of a certain persuasion are unable to talk about their least favorite LP without getting all emotional and butthurt. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

NeilN would you mind weighing in on this? We have run into a spot of confusion about BLP policy. It started with this edit [2], which I stated was a BLP violation, although Mandruss said it's not. FCAYS has also stated that Scjessey has been smearing and attacking other editors on the article under discretionary sanctions, so the opinion of an administrator would be valued so that we could add clarity to this discussion, and take the appropriate action necessary (if any is needed). Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: "Trump's lackey" is SOURCED, and "smearing" and "attacking" I am supposed to have done did not actually happen. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mr. Daniel Plainview: If you want to message other editors, please do so on THEIR talk pages. This is not your personal playground. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: In various comments you accused User:JFG of promulgating "revisionist nonsense" based on "fringe right-wing sources" based on his "ignorance of the facts".

JFG has been editing Wikipedia for 12 years. Do you really think he goes around citing fringe sources? Moreover, it appears that it's your own ignorance that led you to believe this in the first place, as RS fact reporting and commentary both amply demonstrate that Trump's approach to diplomacy is extensively discussed as a contributing factor. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

JFG and I agree on many things (example) and disagree on many things. This is one of the times I disagree. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I called JFG out on that one too. And others reject his revisionist Trump narrative on the talk page. It's irrelevant how long he's been here. I hope he has not been having days like today for all 12 years. SPECIFICO talk 01:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Note

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I clicked on that link you provided and the "source" presented me with a popup inviting me to add my name "to the millions demanding Congress take action on the President’s crimes". I hope this is not an indication of the type of sources you are advocating using in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I messed up and blocked you instead of FCAYS. I've indicated this in the block log. My sincere apologies. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Just a note NeilN (sorry for the pings, Scjessey, I feel it is appropriate when addressing an administrator whose assistance I requested), Scjessey had previously received the sanctions warning [3] and been blocked for violating sanctions previously [4]. This is why I (and I think others) are puzzled why this is allowed to continue and Mandruss is stating that these kinds of attacks on other editors and living persons are acceptable. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mr. Daniel Plainview: The log indicates that block was nullified. Let me see what's going on here. If necessary, I'll post to your talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Just to clarify, I am indeed fully aware of the Arbcom ruling and the associated discretionary sanctions. Obviously I feel strongly that I haven't violated them in any way, despite protestations from a group of like-minded editors who suggest otherwise. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)